The Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL), was yesterday severely lambasted by consumers at a public hearing called by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to look at the company's performance over its period of operation.

The three-hour hearing, held at the Hotel Tower yesterday afternoon, saw several consumers venting on instances where they felt they had been victims of actions by the power company.

However, prior to their contributions, GPL laid over to the PUC a 70-page document in which it specified actions taken to secure and improve its assets, reduce losses and improve its supply quality against higher oil prices than in 1999 and the difficulty in raising substantial funds in the international market.

Chief Executive Officer, John Lynn, briefly outlining what obtained in the document stated that it covered areas of property and assets maintenance, loss reduction and supply continuity.

A perusal of the document showed that under the first section, the GPL sought to show its financial framework, source of funding and financial status. It also highlighted achievements, improved supply position, meeting growth demand and its ability to deliver.

Under the second heading `loss reduction', it showed loss reduction targets, approach and data. In the third area the issues of generation, transmission and distribution are set out.

Lynn also alluded to the limited resources of the company while stating that this allowed only so much to be done within a given period.

But despite a brief interjection from counsel for the power company, Senior Counsel Miles Fitzpatrick, in which he questioned the procedure to be followed in presenting testimony, customers aired their views forcibly.

Albert Lewis, a stallholder of the Stabroek Market and the representative of several others, presented a petition signed by some 114 stallholders about the relocation of their meters away from their stalls to an area where they were unable to read them easily.

Herbie Harper raised an issue of a substantial jump in a South Ruimveldt consumer's bill in December 2001, which recorded that the consumer used 3,961 units costing $113,000, when the person's monthly average for the previous 11 months was only 174 units.

Calling the issue unfair he stated that he had written to management about the issue, but had received little redress.

Another customer Edwin Veerasammy stated that the document presented by GPL was merely a delaying tactic to get away from dealing with consumers' issues.

However, the most forceful attack on the company's performance came from former chairman of the old Guyana Electricity Corporation, Ramon Gaskin. He cited six areas where he alleged the power company failed to meet its obligations under its licence.

According to Gaskin, GPL has violated its licence in relation to its failures to meet targets in transmission, distribution and generation, its disconnection of consumers, failure to adhere to international accounting principles and failure to invest in the rehabilitation of the sector.

Gaskin used figures from audited reports of the power company and quoted extensively from the licence given to the company to operate to press home the point that it had not been meeting its obligations and ought not to benefit from tariff hikes.

While calling on the commission to reverse and overturn the new rates and penalise GPL as prescribed under the licence, he stated that it was obligated to deal with the company.

He said that an audit report from Ram and McRae showed that $160 million of a proposed $1.1 billion was spent on distribution system. In the area of generation $238 million of just over $1 billion was spent, while in capital works $398 million was spent, while the management team received $658 million in advisory fees.

According to Gaskin, the company was still raising tariffs although government subsided it to the tune of $2.1 billion in keeping with the formula in the licence.

He termed the system as wicked, while placing the blame for the problems of losses for which the company was using the formula of rates hikes to recoup from consumers, squarely at the feet of management.

At the start of yesterday session the PUC's legal adviser, Alan Wilson, in outlining the reasons for the hearing initiated by the commission stated that it was an opportunity to address concerns relating to the power company and its quality and standard of service.

PUC Chairman, Prem Persaud, had earlier indicated that the commission had been engaged in discussions with GPL on the critical issue of billing, which was a major grouse of many customers and there had been some progress. He further promised to share outcome of those discussions some time next week.

Also present at yesterday's hearing were consumer advocates, Eileen Cox and Patrick Dyal along with top departmental managers of the power company.

The hearing was adjourned at about 1800 hrs after Fitzpatrick pointed the commission to a section of the Electricity Sector Reform Act page 58 while alluding to the what the commission was permitted to do in relation to tariffs.